Case law

Norris v. City of Lincoln Park Police Officers

292 Mich. App. 574 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2011

In Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 468, 480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008), the Supreme Court concluded that lower-level employees are entitled to qualified immunity from tort liability for intentional torts when the acts were undertaken … Therefore, the trial court erred by holding that factual issues prevented the application of qualified immunity for the intentional tort claims. 4 *582 The trial court also erred by denying defendant Vann’s motion for summary

Bennett v. Detroit Police Chief

274 Mich. App. 307 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 14, 2007

Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. … Even if plaintiff could establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the Mayor’s involvement, Mayor Kilpatrick would enjoy the same governmental immunity as do Chief Oliver and the city of Detroit.

Eichhorn v. Lamphere School District

166 Mich. App. 527 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1988

Accordingly, defendant City of Madison Heights Police Department, in accordance with the rule established in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, supra, regarding intentional torts and governmental immunity, and defendant Bryan … See Ross, supra, pp 593-594 . 7 See n 5, supra. 8 The Smith Court qualified its holding that there exists no "intentional tort” exception to 0overnmental immunity by noting that "the intentional use or misuse of a badge of

Guardiola v. Oakwood Hospital

200 Mich. App. 524 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1993

IMMUNITY IN MICHIGAN Before 1960, charitable immunity was well established in Michigan as a defense to negligence liability of hospitals. … Qualifying for a tax exemption is more difficult than qualifying for tort immunity. Thus, meeting the requirements of the former may be probative of whether the latter should apply.

Pemberton v. Dharmani

207 Mich. App. 522 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1994

Zarewych, as a member of Crittenton Hospital’s obstetrics and gynecology department, did not qualify for immunity under the Good Samaritan statute because the hospital’s rules and regulations imposed upon him a "hospital … Plaintiffs may not rely upon mere allegations or denials in their pleadings to establish a genuine issue for trial. MCR 2.116(G)(4).

People of Michigan v. Iskandar Manuel

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2017

A qualifying patient or primary caregiver who possesses more marijuana than allowed under § 4(a) and § 4(b) cannot establish the second element of immunity. … Finally, to establish the fourth element of § 4 immunity, a defendant must prove that he or she was engaged in the medical use of marijuana. Hartwick, 498 Mich at 219.

People v. McIntire

232 Mich. App. 71 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 1999

The issue we address here is simply whether testimony must be truthful in order to qualify for immunity from prosecution, i.e., whether a statutory requirement that one “answer” questions in a legal proceeding be construed … The prosecutor moved for a grant of immunity, for example, without even specifying that defendant was first required to testify in order to qualify for immunity under the statute.

Stephen Kudzia v. Avasi Services Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2014

and preemption provisions.5 As noted above, the MMMA’s immunity clause provides in relevant part as follows: A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification … The disqualification clearly amounted to a penalty imposed upon claimants for their medical use of marijuana that ran afoul of the MMMA’s immunity clause.

People of Michigan v. Iskandar Manuel

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2017

A qualifying patient or primary caregiver who possesses more marijuana than allowed under § 4(a) and § 4(b) cannot establish the second element of immunity. … Finally, to establish the fourth element of § 4 immunity, a defendant must prove that he or she was engaged in the medical use of marijuana. Hartwick, 498 Mich at 219.

People v. Redden

290 Mich. App. 65 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2010

patients in an enclosed, locked facility. • Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. • Permit … First, the prosecution clearly did raise the issue below.

Carr v. City of Lansing

259 Mich. App. 376 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2004

We conclude that the trial court clearly erred by finding the city had jurisdiction over the intersection and erred as a matter of law by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because governmental immunity barred … So, reading the plain language of the amendment, § 2a is an exception to subsection 2(1), the highway exception to the general rule of governmental immunity established in subsection 7(1).

Antkiewicz v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

91 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1979

We then determine "whether the plaintiff[s’] claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery”. … Justice Moody’s construction, employing the qualifier "effectively”, encompasses the "can only be done by the government” construction set forth by Justices Fitzgerald, Levin, and Kavanagh, and we, therefore, regard it as

Christie Deruiter v. Township of Byron

325 Mich. App. 275 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalty in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any right or privilege to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … MCL 333.26424(b)(2)’s immunity grants caregivers the right to possess 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient and cultivate and keep 12 marijuana plants for each qualifying patient in an enclosed, locked

People of Michigan v. Dana Lynn Cook

323 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Section 4 provides qualifying patients who hold registry cards “broad immunity from criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and disciplinary actions[.]” Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395. … That is precisely what is accomplished by Section 4 of the MMMA, as it provides absolute immunity from prosecution to those individuals that can establish the required elements of the statute.

McPherson v. Fitzpatrick

63 Mich. App. 461 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1975

Plaintiff would apply "the doctrine of the last antecedent” which provides that qualifying words and phrases refer only to the last antecedent where no contrary intention appears. … "(c) 'State’ means the state of Michigan and its agencies, departments, and commissions, and shall include every public university and college of the state, whether established as a constitutional corporation or otherwise

Audrey West v. Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

“It is well established that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, but is instead a characteristic of government.” … It is a plaintiff’s burden to plead and prove facts establishing an exception to governmental immunity. Fairley, 497 Mich at 298, 300; Mack, 467 Mich at 198.

Harris v. Missavage

165 Mich. App. 96 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1987

Under the Feres doctrine, the Supreme Court has established an exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity, holding that the United States is not liable under the ftca for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise … Further, the Feres doctrine is clearly applicable to medical malpractice claims.

Sanchez v. Lagoudakis

217 Mich. App. 535 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1996

a food service establishment. … , or to qualify for employment as, a waitress.

Brown v. Mayor of Detroit

271 Mich. App. 692 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2006

Specifically, the Dudewicz Court explained: In any event, Dickson is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Under MCL 15.361(d)(v), the FBI would qualify as a separate “public body.”

Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights

296 Mich. App. 387 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 1, 2012

Clearly, the curb cutout was designed to make pedestrian travel easier for all individuals, not for ease in vehicular travel. We shall, however, review a couple of cases addressing curbs in general. … A curb cutout is conducive, and is intended to be conducive, to pedestrian travel, and it qualifies as part or an extension of the sidewalk.